Salvatore Ingala [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2023-05-05 🗒️ Summary of this message: Salvatore ...
📅 Original date posted:2023-05-05
🗒️ Summary of this message: Salvatore Ingala discusses the generalization of a construct allowing access to embedded data of inputs and outputs, and the enforcement of output keys and static taptrees. He suggests using a Merkle tree to commit to a set of pubkeys and amounts owned by participants in a coin pool, and an output taptree where each participant has their own spending path. The witness would be the Merkle proof, plus additional information to identify the leaf in the tree. A Merkle tree as described above commits to an entire vector that can be indexed positionally.
📝 Original message:On Thu, 4 May 2023 at 10:34, Johan Torås Halseth <johanth at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It sounds like we can generalize the description of the construct to:
> Access to (the hash of) embedded data of inputs and outputs, and the
> enforcement of output keys and (static) taptrees. In other words, as
> long as you can dynamically compute the output embedded data in
> Script, you can enforce more or less anything (since you can make the
> output script enforce presenting a witness "satisfying" the embedded
> data).
>
> Does that sound about right?
Yes. Fraud proofs allow us to extend beyond what Script can do (with the
necessary tradeoffs), but there is plenty that can be done without them.
> For instance, I believe you could simulate coin pools pretty easily:
> Commit to the set of pubkeys and amounts owned by the participants in
> the pool, and an output taptree where each participant has their own
> spending path. Now, to exit the pool unilaterally, the participant
> must present a proof that their pubkey+amount is committed to in the
> input and an output where it is no longer committed.
I don't think one would want to have a tapleaf for each participant:
that would make you pay log n hashes just to reveal the tapleaf, and
then you still need to pay log n hashes to access the embedded data.
Instead, the "unilateral withdrawal Script" can be the same for all the
participants. The witness would be the Merkle proof, plus perhaps some
additional information to identify the leaf in the tree (depending on
how the Merkle tree is implemented). In a complete Merkle tree for
N = 2^n participants, the witness could contain the n hashes that allow
to prove the value of the leaf, plus n bits to identify the path to the
leaf (0/1 for 'left/right" child), since Script doesn't have enough
opcodes to extract the bits from the leaf index.
The data in the leaf can contain a commitment to all the information
relevant for that participant (e.g.: their balance and pubkey, in a
CoinPool construction).
Then, the same witness can easily be reused to compute the new Merkle
root after the data in the leaf is modified (for example, setting the
amount to 0 for one participant).
> A question that arises is how one would efficiently (in Script) prove
> the inclusion/exclusion of the data in the commitment. One could
> naively hash all the data twice during script execution (once for the
> input, once for the output), but that is costly. It would be natural
> to show merkle tree inclusion/exclusion in script, but perhaps there
> are more efficient ways to prove it?
A Merkle tree as described above commits to an entire vector that you
can index positionally. That's quite versatile, and easier to handle
than more complex constructions like accumulators with exclusion proofs.
A Merkle proof for 2^7 = 128 participants requires about 8 hashes, so
around 250 bytes in total of witness size; 2^10 = 1024 should bring that
to the ballpark of 350 bytes.
Best,
Salvatore Ingala
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230505/ab517fd1/attachment-0001.html>;
🗒️ Summary of this message: Salvatore Ingala discusses the generalization of a construct allowing access to embedded data of inputs and outputs, and the enforcement of output keys and static taptrees. He suggests using a Merkle tree to commit to a set of pubkeys and amounts owned by participants in a coin pool, and an output taptree where each participant has their own spending path. The witness would be the Merkle proof, plus additional information to identify the leaf in the tree. A Merkle tree as described above commits to an entire vector that can be indexed positionally.
📝 Original message:On Thu, 4 May 2023 at 10:34, Johan Torås Halseth <johanth at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It sounds like we can generalize the description of the construct to:
> Access to (the hash of) embedded data of inputs and outputs, and the
> enforcement of output keys and (static) taptrees. In other words, as
> long as you can dynamically compute the output embedded data in
> Script, you can enforce more or less anything (since you can make the
> output script enforce presenting a witness "satisfying" the embedded
> data).
>
> Does that sound about right?
Yes. Fraud proofs allow us to extend beyond what Script can do (with the
necessary tradeoffs), but there is plenty that can be done without them.
> For instance, I believe you could simulate coin pools pretty easily:
> Commit to the set of pubkeys and amounts owned by the participants in
> the pool, and an output taptree where each participant has their own
> spending path. Now, to exit the pool unilaterally, the participant
> must present a proof that their pubkey+amount is committed to in the
> input and an output where it is no longer committed.
I don't think one would want to have a tapleaf for each participant:
that would make you pay log n hashes just to reveal the tapleaf, and
then you still need to pay log n hashes to access the embedded data.
Instead, the "unilateral withdrawal Script" can be the same for all the
participants. The witness would be the Merkle proof, plus perhaps some
additional information to identify the leaf in the tree (depending on
how the Merkle tree is implemented). In a complete Merkle tree for
N = 2^n participants, the witness could contain the n hashes that allow
to prove the value of the leaf, plus n bits to identify the path to the
leaf (0/1 for 'left/right" child), since Script doesn't have enough
opcodes to extract the bits from the leaf index.
The data in the leaf can contain a commitment to all the information
relevant for that participant (e.g.: their balance and pubkey, in a
CoinPool construction).
Then, the same witness can easily be reused to compute the new Merkle
root after the data in the leaf is modified (for example, setting the
amount to 0 for one participant).
> A question that arises is how one would efficiently (in Script) prove
> the inclusion/exclusion of the data in the commitment. One could
> naively hash all the data twice during script execution (once for the
> input, once for the output), but that is costly. It would be natural
> to show merkle tree inclusion/exclusion in script, but perhaps there
> are more efficient ways to prove it?
A Merkle tree as described above commits to an entire vector that you
can index positionally. That's quite versatile, and easier to handle
than more complex constructions like accumulators with exclusion proofs.
A Merkle proof for 2^7 = 128 participants requires about 8 hashes, so
around 250 bytes in total of witness size; 2^10 = 1024 should bring that
to the ballpark of 350 bytes.
Best,
Salvatore Ingala
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230505/ab517fd1/attachment-0001.html>;